Oregon bakery shuts down after gay rights attacks

It's ashamed that the bakery chose to close its doors rather than reach out
to customers with an apology for its mistake. While businesses may be able to
legally deny service to certain customers, it isn't always a good business
decision. In my opinion, the bakery was rightfully held accountable to the
community for its discrimination against gays. While I don't condone the
mean-spirited behavior cited in the article, I think the bakery must accept the
closure as the consequence of its inability to meet the demands of the market in
which it operated. Perhaps they should consider a move to Uganda, where they
impose the death penalty for homosexuality.

postaledithFreeland, WA

Oct. 22, 2013 6:27 a.m.

I disagree with this article. There was no attack. The husband of the shop
insulted and degraded the couple wanting the cake. What he did was not in
compliance of having a business license in Washington. They shut down their
shop because their bigotry hurt their business. The couple ended up having a
beautiful cake made by a famous baker from the east coast and they had a second
cake of a beautiful peacock. Their wedding was a success and they are very
happy.

RustymommyClovis, NM

Sept. 19, 2013 12:42 p.m.

Accountants, attorneys, etal have the right to refuse to take on a client that
doesn't meet their expectations. Why should any other business be any
different. Just like the photographer incident in NM, why would anyone want a
person with adverse feelings about their views playing a big part in the most
important day of his/her life? The results might be less than optimal and bitter
feelings do not spread good vibes. This couple should just choose somebody who
is more in line with their views. No doubt, there are other bakeries in the
area.

The gay community does harm to their cause by using strong
armed tactics. Sure they can put one bakery out of business. But alas, they have
also made a lot of people angry. If they want their views to be respected, then
they need to show respect for the views of people who feel differently.
Tolerance and compassion need to go both directions.

earthquakejakeLogan, UT

Sept. 15, 2013 10:29 p.m.

this really doesn't make gays look good at all.

snowmanProvo, UT

Sept. 15, 2013 8:11 p.m.

I see signs in business' all the time that say they reserve the right to
refuse service for anything The don't need a reason.

Ededkaysvile, UT

Sept. 15, 2013 1:24 p.m.

I applaud this couple and hope them the best for standing for what they feel is
right!

Furry1993Ogden, UT

Sept. 15, 2013 9:21 a.m.

@snowman

jrp7sen: Business have the right to refuse service to
anyone. They do it all the time

------------------

You
forget. By obtaining a business license, this bakery agreed to abide by all
regulations, including regulations concerning discrimination, that had been or
were in the future enacted. hen they obtained the business license, there was a
regulation providing that discrimination based on sexual orientation as illegal.
By obtaining their business license, they agreed that they would not
discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Part of their business was
to bake and provide wedding cakes. Since they provided cakes for receptions for
"straight" marriages, they legally could not discriminate by refusing to
provide cakes for receptions for "gay" marriages. That is de facto
discrimination based on sexual orientation, and consequently illegal.

It should be noted that their so-called "religion-based" refusal to
provide cases to celebrate gay marriages was hypocritical. They were also
contacted to provide cakes to celebrate a multitude of events which would
violate their religion. All of THOSE requests were responded to positively,
with price quotes. All of those events were gross violations of their religion,
but they would provide cakes for THEM.

snowmanProvo, UT

Sept. 14, 2013 6:30 p.m.

jrp7sen: Business have the right to refuse service to anyone. They do it all
the time

Cindy KeplerSalem, OR

Sept. 14, 2013 1:44 p.m.

Religion is CHOICE. A learned behaviour and belief.

Cindy KeplerSalem, OR

Sept. 14, 2013 1:41 p.m.

Here is a great analogy for you that would both provoke thought and also be
illegal in Oregon. You own a convenience store. A pregnant woman walks in to
purchase cigarettes. You have a moral problem against pregnant women smoking and
doing harm to their child, you refuse. You have just violated the law. As
horrible and repugnant as you find her smoking you have no legal right to impose
your beliefs on her. You are selling them to anyone and everyone else, but not
her, discrimination. *assuming you are understanding that she is of legal age so
please no comments about how she has to be of legal age* This is exactly the
same as the baker even if you don't want to accept it. Product for sale,
issue with morals, refusal, violation. Oh and the women didn't file a
lawsuit. They filed a complaint with a state agency.

Cindy KeplerSalem, OR

Sept. 14, 2013 1:39 p.m.

Counter Intelligence:Some simple answers. The bookstore that doesn't
sell certain books, just doesn't sell the book. They don't have it,
they won't get it and they don't sell it to anyone. Your question
would have merit if the bookstore had it but would only sell it to certain
people for certain things. A deli that doesn't sell Kosher is the
same as above, they don't sell it to anyone, so they are not
discriminating.This baker should just have not sold wedding cakes knowing
that they had an issue with gay weddings. That is the only scenario that matches
your previous queries.

They sold wedding cakes but refused to sell
one to this couple. And this for other posters is not a service. It is a
product.

Cindy KeplerSalem, OR

Sept. 14, 2013 1:21 p.m.

Oregon law is clear, and was in place when Sweet Cakes opened their doors. Our
only recourse to laws we disagree with are changing them, not violating them.

This bakery did this to themselves. I feel no pity for them.
Discrimination is wrong, regardless of whom it doing it or why. We all need to
take care of each other and promote our strengths not use our differences
against each other.

By the way, these were not militant/mafia
actions. A boycott is a is a boycott, and calling vendors that the bakery worked
with and letting them know that Oregonians don't want this type of
discrimination is worthy and done all over our world for a variety of reasons.
Breaking legs, extortion, robbery and vandalism are militant and mafia tactics.

This bakery didn't like "us" voting with our dollars,
which is what drove them out of business. All of the defenders should have stood
side by side and frequented the bakery to keep them afloat. Their own supporters
turned their backs on them/

jrp7senLogan, UT

Sept. 14, 2013 11:25 a.m.

Good.

It is the law. You must serve the PUBLIC. That includes gays
and lesbians. If you have a permit to run a business, then you MUST serve
everyone.

Besides, Jesus and God NEVER said you should stop serving
your fellow man. We are taught that divorce is wrong, but we don't refuse
service to those who have had a divorce, that is silly.

WAKE UP
MORMONS. Thank you.

/signed an active Mormon millennial.

JanetOntario, OR

Sept. 13, 2013 7:59 p.m.

Western Oregon is a hotbed of trendy liberal thinking, just as Utah is a hotbed
of trendy conservative thinking. The bakery owners might consider relocating to
eastern Oregon or Idaho. I can't see why the reaction to their standing
their ground in the Portland area would surprise anyone who knows the culture
there. I've never been able to understand why people live in Utah and
complain endlessly about Mormons. I've lived in 11 states and all regions
of the country, and I've learned that it's a lot easier to change
locations than local culture.

zabivkaOrem, UT

Sept. 13, 2013 4:51 p.m.

I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights, but I think that it does them a
disservice to try to force things too much. Rather than attack, I think they
should roll with the tide of ever-increasing support that is already coming
their way, and ignore those who see things differently.

While I
understand how dangerous it can be to look the other way on this issue, and I
realize that if a business wants to be open to the public it "should"
offer its services to all people, I think its a poor long-term move to be on the
attack like this.

BigBuddhaChandler, AZ

Sept. 13, 2013 1:53 p.m.

WORF-- Just bake the cake and collect your money..it's just that simple

BigBuddhaChandler, AZ

Sept. 13, 2013 12:12 p.m.

WOW-- that was a pretty expensive cake that they didn't bake

KaileoLos Angeles, CA

Sept. 13, 2013 12:23 a.m.

Religious rights activists (as many Mormons seem to fancy themselves) need to
remember that they can't discriminate against someone based on their race,
and that orientation is likewise protected. Oh, but you claim (however
erroneously) that orientation is a choice, so it's not the same?

Well, religion is a choice... and we're not allowed to discriminate on
that basis!

poymanLincoln City, OR

Sept. 12, 2013 11:54 p.m.

@parkcity aggie

That's why they have higher courts and an apeal
process... Losing it in OR matters not if the USSC accepts the case... Then it
will be out of the hands of the state couts of OR...

Even if Justice
Kennedy were to join with the 4 Justices of the Left, the ruling can eventually
be overturned through another case (perhaps from a more conservative State like
Texas) if the court should lean farther right... and I believe that day is
coming.

One can only hope.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 11:01 p.m.

A bakery can refuse to bake obscene or other types of cakes. Civil Rights
don't require bakeries to make all types of cakes. The bakery could choose
to not make weddings cakes for anybody--but sell other types of cakes. They
could also hire staff to set up the cake at same-sex weddings. Could they have
side-stepped the issue by simply saying, "we aren't able to accommodate
that date?

The bottom line is, they broke the law in Oregon.
Choices have consequences.

Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 10:51 p.m.

@Irony Guy, pragmatistforlife, atl134

fair enoughbut perhaps
our differences are semantics:

So please explain: If a feminist
owned bookstore refuses to sell playboy (even though they sell other magazines)
can men claim to be discriminated against?If a Christian bookstore does
not sell the Book of Mormon - are they anti-Mormon?If a African American
bookstore refuses to special order the biography of David Duke, are they
inherently anti-white?

You have so broadly defined civil rights laws,
that a deli who does not make kosher products would qualify as anti-Semitic.

There is No indication that the owners refused service because the
patrons were gat (indeed apparently they were previous customers) - they simply
don't produce gay themed products - big difference

(although I
would argue that being gay is NOT like race or gender but that is for another
day)

snowmanProvo, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:41 p.m.

SAS: Why then can business put up signs that say they have reserve the righ to
refuse service to anyone. I (being a frequent visitor to Oregon)have seen these
signs in business of all kinds. I went to Kmart to buy shoes for my child. My
child was not allowed in the store because she did not have shoes on. I have
seen resturants In, Utah and Oregon that have signs that say no shirt, no shoes,
no service.

birderSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:26 p.m.

I think that some members of the LGBT community are out for more than just equal
rights. Some seem to want to force their opinions on everyone else. That is
wrong. By way of comparison, one thing I appreciate about LDS Church leaders is
that they do not attack those they disagree with. You won't go to an LDS
church and find Sunday School classes on how to put down other religions like
you will in some other churches.

Like others have stated, if you
don't like the opinions of one business, don't do business with them.
Just go elsewhere. Give your money to businesses who want your money. This
wouldn't be complicated if it weren't for the agenda of the gay rights
activists.

JeffTemple City, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 7:46 p.m.

@ Lane Meyer:

"I think the best way to explain this is, have they
ever made an obscese cake for someone else? Or a racist cake? If they have, they
need to do it for everyone.

"Had they made a wedding cake for
others? Yes. Now they would not do so for a gay couple. That is what makes it
discrimination under the law."

You have misunderstood me, and my
point. First, I mean to say that a baker's (or photographer's)
*personal* views may come into play here. It would depend entirely on what the
baker of photographer personally considered to be obscene or racist, not
necessarily what the customer thought. (The law, I understand, is vague on both
accounts.)

Second, a wedding cake (and other personalized baked
goods--similar to photography) is less a public offering than a personal
statement. If the bakery made cakes that looked like wedding cakes, made them
available in public display cases, and sold them to everyone but same-gender
couples, then there might be an issue. But a custom-made cake is quite
different; it is at least as much an expression of the baker as it is the
couple.

RandomRedlands, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 7:33 p.m.

We were promised this wouldn't happen in California. I'm sorry to hear
the bakery went out of business.

Bob Kporland, OR

Sept. 12, 2013 7:03 p.m.

The story is full of exaggerations, half-truths, and whining by the baker.

The truth is that Gays are a small minority and could not damage their
business if the public sentiment was not with them -- the current
"Christian" way of justifying discrimination is to compare the Gays to
terrorists, etc -- just complete nonsense.

Yes, turning them down is
illegal in Oregon. I believe that the issue became so polarized because certain
churches forced a referendum in WA ( Southern WA, right across the river is in
the Porland TV market) after marriage equality easily passed the Legislature in
the spring of 2012. Money and effort were spent saying terrible things about
Gays, particularly in some of those churches.

My guess is that if
the baker had said nicely "I'm sorry, my heart would not be in it, but
I can't legally say no", the brides might have gone elsewhere. It is
not necessary say something like "We are Christians, we don't believe
in that" Too many times, we hear harsh words from "Christians" who
think we are not Christians, since we believe a different version of
Christianity.

beagalWest Valley City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 5:39 p.m.

Force is Satanic! As I recall, that preexistence approach was vetoed! In
addition to the attacks this and other businesses have received, there is
indeed, a scuttling of the owners' freedoms.This is not the American
I remember as a child.

worfMcallen, TX

Sept. 12, 2013 4:43 p.m.

Just go somewhere else and get your cake!

It's just that
simple.

zoar63Mesa, AZ

Sept. 12, 2013 4:22 p.m.

@ClarkHippo

"It will be those who are LDS, Catholic and Baptist
who will one day be the biggest target of bullies in public schools. It will be
religious buildings and conservative businesses which will be targeted for
violence. And freedom of speech will more and more turn into, "You can speak
just as long as it is 100% PC."

LDS, Catholic and Baptist; that
is a huge voting block. Now if we could just put aside our religious differences
and unite for a common cause and get Islamic people on board whose views on gay
marriage are similar, politicians would take notice.

greatbam22andrews afb, MD

Sept. 12, 2013 3:46 p.m.

So isn't in interesting how ONLY religious persons are "bigots or
discrimatory". I guess you have never been in any minority neighborhood.
Do you really believe a white guy is going to be treated the same walking into a
black barber shop or some other minority owned business that mostly does
business with their own minority.

You think that religious people
have a monopoly on discrimination? It is perfectly fine maybe in a minority
neighborhood because maybe you weren't going to go their anyways right?

Some people have just been watching / listening to tooooo much liberal
media.

Christ loved the sinner not the sin. He said "go and sin
no more" You can love someone but not be supportive of their choices. I
know it is hard for some of you to understand because you have been told over
and over how much that religious folks hate homosexuals.

Stalwart SentinelSan Jose, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 2:47 p.m.

It is still very unclear where any vigilantism or harassment occurred. It
actually appears the folks who were fighting for equality were merely ensuring
the laws on the books were enforced and then expressed their intent not to
patron other for-profit businesses that aided a non-compliant, law-breaking
bakery. At what point did the activists violate a law or attack anyone? I ask
that honestly, I am not aware of any claimed legal violations on the part of the
activists.

In fact, short of files being charged or evidence being
brought forth that these activists did anything illegal, it seems very dangerous
for the DesNews to title this an "attack." It's sensationalistic,
irresponsible journalism at best, borderline demagoguery at worst.

The article's title ought to read: "Non-compliant Oregon Bakery Shuts
Down Due to Owner's Continued Refusal to Obey the Law."

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 2:30 p.m.

Jeff,"Asking ethically and not legalistically (the law often baffles
me; it is more concerned with precedent than ethics or morality), would such a
bakery be required to make an obscene cake? How about a racist cake, or a
celebration of terrorism?"

-------------I think the best
way to explain this is, have they ever made an obscese cake for someone else?
Or a racist cake? If they have, they need to do it for everyone.

Had
they made a wedding cake for others? Yes. Now they would not do so for a gay
couple. That is what makes it discrimination under the law.

ClarkHippoTooele, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 1:21 p.m.

Not surprised one bit by this story.

Apparently some in the gay and
lesbian community believe the recent Supreme Court rulings regarding DOMA and
Prop 8 now give them license to behave like vigilantes. And, thanks to the help
of the media and liberal politicians, its only going to get worse.

I
easily see a day in which Christians will be the ones forced into the closet,
whether its the workplace, the school building or college campus or even in
regular contacts.

It will be those who are LDS, Catholic and Baptist
who will one day be the biggest target of bullies in public schools. It will be
religious buildings and conservative businesses which will be targeted for
violence. And freedom of speech will more and more turn into, "You can speak
just as long as it is 100% PC."

And those who are currently the
loudest advocates for open-mindedness, tolerance and respect: those who
constantly preach against bullying and harassment. where will they be?

Cricket noises

zoar63Mesa, AZ

Sept. 12, 2013 1:17 p.m.

The way to have handled this would have been for the owner to agree to do make
the wedding cake for the couple but inform them that all profit made from the
sale would be donated to a pro traditional marriage organization on their behalf
and their name and addresss would be forwarded to the organization so they could
send them a thank you card. The couple is still getting the service and they
cannot dictate how the owner will use the money received for the services
provided.

ClarkHippoTooele, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 1:08 p.m.

@New to Utah

If the gay and lesbian community continues to overplay
its hand, people will eventually get tired of their act.

You
want to be able to shove your lifestyle down everyone's throat and use mob
rule to attack and intimidate anyone who criticizes you even the smallest
degree?

Forget it!

JeffTemple City, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 1:06 p.m.

No where in the stories about this (and similiar episodes in other states) does
it say that there was an absolute refusal to grant all services to LGBT clients.
The bakery did not refuse all services to the lesbian couple; there was only a
refusal to provide a wedding cake for a same-gender wedding.

Asking
ethically and not legalistically (the law often baffles me; it is more concerned
with precedent than ethics or morality), would such a bakery be required to make
an obscene cake? How about a racist cake, or a celebration of terrorism?

I think that a bakery (and a photographer, too, for that matter) should
be able to refuse to engage in speech that violates the personal views of the
baker (or photographer). I think it is ethically and morally wrong for someone
to require a bakery to provide something that violates the personal ethics or
morality of the baker. I also think it is wrong for the bakery to refuse to
sell its normal products to someone who belongs to a protected status. These
are not synonymous actions,and should not be treated as such under the law.

techpubsSioux City, IA

Sept. 12, 2013 12:51 p.m.

So here is a question for all of you who are saying service cannot be denied.
If I have a bakery and someone asks me to bake a cake, do I or do I not
have the right to simply say no without giving any reason why I am not going to
do it? Or do you believe that I have to agree to an offer of work simply because
I opened a business? You must remember that there is a difference between having
regular cakes on the shelf for sale and contracting to bake a special cake for
someone.

New to UtahPAYSON, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:34 p.m.

LGBT activists are intolerant. They demonstated mob rule can force a business to
close its doors. It is nothing new in the Portland megaplex. Having lived in
Oregon for 10 years, I can assure you that liberal domination of Multanomah
county has been a millstone for the nearly 4 million Oregonians who deserve much
better. It is sad that other businesses were forced to abide by the dictates of
the mob. Portland's former mayor was a gay who was involved in a possible
criminal sexual encounter with an underage staffer but eventually was swept
under the carpet.

@look_to_godin flux, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:25 p.m.

Oops. Haha. Correction - 20 years, not ten. In my defense, I had the class about
ten years ago...

Thinking out loud here... (figuratively)... What
would happen if someone in the wedding industry (since they seem to be the
obvious targets) was approached for providing services for an LGBT ceremony and
said to prospective customers, "I'm concerned that my discomfort in
being required to attend a function that runs counter to my beliefs and
conscience will have a negative impact on how well I am able to focus on the
services you wish me to provide." Is this not a legitimate statement and
concern? Would they still be sued for how their conscience comes into play?

This may sound absurd to those who think this ALL absurd, but I think
it's legit. If the law required me to give service to members of my abusive
family (but of the emotional/psychological sort which is not so documentable), I
could well be so distressed that said services would automatically be distracted
and therefore below standard. How is the sincere emotional reaction to a forced
violation of conscience different?

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:21 p.m.

@Counter Intelligence

"actually, simply put; yes they do"

No, they don't. That's why we don't have a need for civil
rights activists to engage in sit-ins at diners that refuse to serve black
people.

WRKRiverton, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:16 p.m.

@Lane Myer"Klan members are not listed on the state law of whom one
cannot discriminate against."Yes they are, you cannot discriminate
agaisnt a religion, and to Klan members, that is a religion.

WRKRiverton, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:09 p.m.

So, by one individual's post from Texas, if I had a cake shop that sold
cakes that showed what the KKK would like to do to all those who are not of
their race, then that would be OK. There are some things called morals that
seem to be lacking in today's community.

RedShirtMITCambridge, MA

Sept. 12, 2013 12:08 p.m.

To "StraightGrandmother" I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong.

The first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
That means there will be no state religion like the Church of England, or
anything prohibiting you from exercising (practicing) your religion.

WRKRiverton, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:03 p.m.

I find it most interesting that the people who demand they have rights are the
ones who are least likely to let others have rights. Lest I be misunderstood, I
am talking of those on the left, to include the Gay/Lesbian community. We
should only let others have rights when it is their way of letting others have
rights. Very hipocritical set of people. So glad not to be numbered among
them.

pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utah

Sept. 12, 2013 11:41 a.m.

Counterintelligence..seriously? That aside this is ground this country has tred
many a time. Every time the definition of human/civil rights is expanded those
most exercised about their own freedom go crazy, and generally their objections
to someone else's rights is couched in their religious beliefs. Long term
the conservatives lose..always. Not that they give up, witness Mr/Ms
Counterintelligence, basically denying 100 years of civil rights laws. However
if he or she tried to deny service to a Black person because of their race or if
they lived in Oregon their sexual orientation, they would lose.

@look_to_godin flux, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 11:25 a.m.

Some are sure to pounce on this saying 'it was a religion being attacked,
not a business', but I'm surprised no one else has mentioned a case I
learned about in my political theory class.

Church of Lukumi Babalu
Aye v. City of Hialeah

I don't recall which poster it was that
said there's a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of
practice (I can't say I comprehend where/how there is a separation...), but
as per the (referenced) quote in wikipedia it said, "it was deemed
unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision,
“religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or
comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”
"

So I keep wondering why this has been ignored and
forgotten...? This was back in 1993. How did we take a 180 in ten short years?

AmalgamateLos Angeles, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 10:49 a.m.

crunchem-youre sadly misinfomred just like other religious sheep. They were not
harassed because there is no evidence-any police reports? no-check, any
witnesses besides them? no, check, their word is meaningless

AmalgamateLos Angeles, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 10:47 a.m.

Tekakaromatagi-youre middle eastern so you dont get it-in this country, we
respect ALL people-women too! shocker, huh? It's not about "Gay
Right", it's about the right to be gay-your country is about 800 years
behind ours-you'll catch up

Irony GuyBountiful, Utah

Sept. 12, 2013 10:26 a.m.

@Counter IntelligenceA business that offers services to the public does
NOT have the legal right to deny service to "anyone it wants," and
that's the way it should be. The Civil Rights acts make it illegal for
businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation,
religion. Otherwise, we'd go back to the days when blacks, gays, Jews,
Mexicans, etc., were routinely denied service. I was a customer in a barbershop
back in the 1960s when a Latino man came in looking to get a haircut. The barber
picked up a bottle, threw it at him, shouted, "Get out of here,
Mexican!" That was the pre-Civil Rights world. BTW, I myself never
patronized that business again.

CottageCheeseSALT LAKE CITY, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 10:20 a.m.

Sounds like acceptance and tolerance to me. "If you don't agree with
my morality I will take away your livelihood."

poymanLincoln City, OR

Sept. 12, 2013 10:14 a.m.

@parkcityaggie

When a law is developed and passed based on policiacl
correctness and immoral principles, it is a bad law...

When a law
takes away the freedoms of an individual or a family wishing to conduct their
business based on their religious and moral values it is a bad law...

When a law is put in place by a city or a state and is in conflict with the
laws and provisions of the constitution it is a bad law (meaning illegal) and
should be challenged... Then what? Which law do you follow?

To imply
that members of the church who are opposed to this ridiculous and confusing law
are in breach of their faith is ridiculous and disingenuous...

I
find it amusing that people who are not of a certain faith or who may not even
be religious at all are often the first to head to the pulpit and preach to the
masses about the hypocricy of their ways (citing scripture and verse of which
they, themselves, have little to no understanding).

In short,
parkcityaggie, I am more than comfortible with how my beliefs on this issue
square with my faith.

Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 9:20 a.m.

@pragmatistferlife

"It's astounding, yes astounding to see
the responses here claiming that a business has the right to deny service to
anyone it wants. Simply put, no they don't."

actually,
simply put; yes they do

Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 9:13 a.m.

@ParkCityAggie

"How come this is the only media outlet I see
running this story?"Its been widely reported - The DN is actually a
late comer

Stalwart SentinelIf a person can hate in the name
of God, Motherhood or patriotism - then they can hate in the name of civil
rights, women's right or gay right. Your basic assumption that all
support for those causes is inherently noble is simply inaccurate.As a
homosexual, gay bullies do NOT help me any more than Al Sharpton advances racial
tolerance.

btw DN moderators, nice job of ongoing censorship

Stalwart SentinelSan Jose, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 8:44 a.m.

I missed the "attack". All I read was that citizens of Oregon had the
audacity to enforce the laws on the books and then proceeded to utilize the free
market to boycott or potentially boycott businesses they disagreed with. This
isn't an attack, this is standing up to a bully.

Stop playing
the victim. Christians (myself included) have enjoyed the rule of the roost, to
the detriment of others, for far too long in the United States. Historically,
the perpetrators of human rights violations in the US have a common theme:
white, religious conservatives.

If you want to get a good sense of
which side is in the right, look to the activist organizations that correctly
fought against civil rights abuses of the past and see who they support. Most
organizations that fought for and continue fighting for blacks' rights or
women's rights now fight for gay rights. It is disheartening, however, to
see my fellow LDS fight against a marginalized group of Americans. If we LDS
are going to only fight for individuals that share our personal ideals while
fighting against those that don't, I fear we did not learn the appropriate
lessons from Missouri/Illinois.

Viva la MigraAmerican Fork, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:44 a.m.

This seems to be a coordinated effort by the LBGT community to target small
business owners who have a religious objection to gay marriage. Earlier this
year the same thing happened to a Colorado bakery. There have also been similar
instances with florists and photographers. In one case a photographer arranged
for a different photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding for the same
price, but the gay couple still file discrimination complaint against the
original photographer.

I have yet to hear about a gay couple trying
to do this to a Muslim-owned business, they seem to only target Christians.

It seems wrong for a judge to religious beliefs have to be set aside
when requests are made by clients. Where will this end? Could a web designer
be compelled to create a website displaying something contrary to religious
beliefs. Could a Jewish or Muslim caterer be compelled to serve ham at an
Easter celebration?

Tuffy ParkerSalem, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:41 a.m.

The problem the LGBT activists is that they have no tolerance for difference of
opinion. They are right and if you don't agree with them you are wrong.
Then they become determined to force you to believe as they do. The concept of
"we will force you to accept our belief and accept our actions" is
terrifying.

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:38 a.m.

SLCWatch

Salt Lake City, UT

Let's look at it from a
different angle.

If a black photographer is asked to take pictures of
a Ku Klux Klan convention and he is held to the same quality and standard of
work he would provide anyone else he must provide those services.-------------------

Klan members are not listed on the state law of
whom one cannot discriminate against.

Big difference.

crunchemCedar City, Utah

Sept. 12, 2013 8:29 a.m.

Marco - Are you reading the same article as the rest of us? What is the story
about? A bakery. check. Where is it? Oregon. check. What happened? They
were (verbally) attacked and intimidated. check. By whom? Gay rights
activists. check.

Looks like the headline summed it up perfectly.
Perhaps your agenda is showing?

pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utah

Sept. 12, 2013 8:22 a.m.

It's astounding, yes astounding to see the responses here claiming that a
business has the right to deny service to anyone it wants. Simply put, no they
don't. Commerce is regulated pure and simple, and one of those regulations
is a restriction on whom you can deny service to. It's federal law and
it's state law.

No state has a law that I'm aware of that
says you have to serve everyone who comes through your door, but all states say
you can't refuse service to someone based on certain criteria, and now in
some states that includes a persons sexual orientation. So, if a gay person
comes into your bakery without their shirt on you could ask them to leave based
on your standard of no shirt, no service, but you couldn't refuse them
service if they requested a cake for their gay wedding.

I'm
also curious which other laws the DN would recommend we refuse to obey.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:21 a.m.

When an employee cannot comply with the rules of the employer and is unable to
renegotiate the rules the only thing the employee can do is quit.

The
same thing applies to business operations. If a town, city, state or group
allows a business operation to provide service or goods to its member citizens,
it is in fact in the role of the employer.

The business operation
as the employee must either follow the rules or quit. This is the only freedom
that business operations have so far as the permission to operate is concerned.
This overall rule for business does not take away any freedom guaranteed by the
Constitution.

PolishBearCharleston, WV

Sept. 12, 2013 8:19 a.m.

All the bakeries and florists and caterers and photographers that people are
wailing and gnashing their teeth about? They aren't in the business of
enforcing moral codes or providing spiritual guidance, they exist to MAKE MONEY.
And as such they are obligated to comply with civil rights laws, whether those
civil rights law protect people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation.

Perhaps Christians who believe that existing civil
rights laws are too burdensome should file suit to have those laws overturned.
Who knows, maybe they’ll be successful! Maybe the Supreme Court will
determine that civil rights laws interfere with religious freedom and freedom of
association. Then we can go back to the days when landlords could refuse to rent
to Muslims, and restaurants could turn away Blacks. Christian business owners
would be allowed to ask prospective customers which religion or sexual
orientation they are, and then pick and choose which customers to serve, and
which to turn away.

You could even call it "American
Exceptionalism!"

crunchemCedar City, Utah

Sept. 12, 2013 8:19 a.m.

Mom of 8 - Ironically, since YOUR discrimination was by someone contracted
with the STATE to provide a service for you, you SHOULD have squawked long and
hard about what they did. That's way out of bounds. As for not baking a
cake for someone, that's their PRIVATE business, and no one should tell
them how to run it. As it is, I'm glad you found other ways to solve your
problem. Talk about double whammy; Mormon AND homeschooled outside of Utah,
kudos to you. lol

gburns52Milford, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:18 a.m.

From what I've read in this and previous articles, this is not
discrimination based on their sexual orientation, as they were regular customers
of the bakery. The bakery refused to make a cake that it considered vulgar.
Would you consider it discrimination that a delicatessen owned by a Jew did not
sell ham? The bigger issue here is that the activists have threatened other
businesses, which is extortion. Now, you're talking about cutting off
someone's means of surviving and not just a cake for entertainment.

Morgan DuelTaylorsville, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 8:18 a.m.

Welcome to the new world. Seems like the Germans faced this thinking in the
1930's and look what happened? But then that really did not happen did it?

east of utahSaint Joseph, MO

Sept. 12, 2013 8:07 a.m.

The law is you cannot discriminate because of sexual orientation. Have they
ever refused to sell a birthday cake to somebody because they were gay? If two
heteorsexual individuals walked in and wanted a wedding cake, would they do it?
The issue is not one of sexual orientation but rather same sex marriage.

JBQSaint Louis, MO

Sept. 12, 2013 8:01 a.m.

As a Christian, this is a very tough issue. However, the vindictiveness on the
part of the group is overwhelming. Whatever happened to good old fashioned
picketing? These types of threats could be construed as extortion. This is on
the cusp of what the mafia were once upon a time accused of doing. The question
is whether there were physical threats as well.

rbgntxKaufman, TX

Sept. 12, 2013 7:58 a.m.

Many of the comments here are supporting the business owner's right to
refuse service as they see fit and decrying the pressure brought to bear by the
gay community. Many years ago, while a student at Weber State, I witnessed Joy
Beach and her inappropriately named "Citizens for True Freedom" protest
and demand the closure of an Ogden bakery that sold adult themed cakes. I do not
recall a similar outpouring of support for business rights at that time.

TekakaromatagiDammam, Saudi Arabia

Sept. 12, 2013 7:55 a.m.

This is not about gay rights anymore. This is now about the Gay Right.

MayfairCity, Ut

Sept. 12, 2013 7:50 a.m.

Schwa--

maybe you'd like to talk to the Mormon missionaries that
were escorted out of a Christen bookstore in Tulsa, Oklahoma.....For being
Mormons, with missionary name tags. The missionaries were told the business
refuses the right to serve anyone, and the right to refuse admittance to anyone.

riverofsunSt.George, Utah

Sept. 12, 2013 7:46 a.m.

If hard liners could learn to go with the flow.Ok, so you don't
approve of something. Learn to live and let live. That's all the bakery had
to do. They do not have to embrace gay marriage, or attend the event.Wish
the couple the best, collect your money, and keep your business thriving. Quite
uncomplicated.It will be the only way to retain sanity in the days to
come.

MimiVenice, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 7:30 a.m.

Now Satan has us fighting over pastries. Stupid.

BlueSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 7:28 a.m.

Was the bakery vandalized?

Were the owners assaulted?

No
and no.

The word "attacked" is used here to imply violence,
when in fact the owners of the bakery simply experienced the wholly predictable
consequences of their own bigotry.

KralonHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 7:15 a.m.

-Brother Benjamin Franklin-"I think that this business got exactly
what it deserved. When you discriminate against someone because you don't
agree with them, then you have a serious problem in society."

Oh,
absolutely, so please, the next time you find out a business refused to serve
that embezzler, serial killer or pedophile, remember you have a serious problem
in society! You can't 'discriminate against someone because you
don't agree with them'.

The Dixie KidSaint George, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 6:25 a.m.

If was the bakery I would agree to make the cake, but I would make a horrible
looking cake.

RGBuena Vista, VA

Sept. 12, 2013 6:18 a.m.

I can't believe that I actually agree with Hutterite! (I think for about
the 2nd time ever).

Michael Brown proposed some thought-provoking
hypothetical cases in a recent Town Hall column, “Test cases for the
freedoms of religion and conscience”: 1) Asking a gay owner of a tshirt
shop to make a shirt saying it is not ok to be gay 2) asking a gay photographer
to photograph a religious antigay rally 3)asking a gay print shop to print
fliers advertising an ex-gay conference? 4) a psychologist asks a gay web
designer to make a web ad advertising therapy to turn straight 5) asking an
orthodox Jewish videographer to record a Jews for Jesus event 6) hiring an
orthodox Jewish caterer to cater for a party in the same kitchen as another
caterer preparing pork and shrimp dishes.

In all these cases I
support the business to refuse the customer.

Say No to BOMapleton, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 6:14 a.m.

So many questions and the Church isn't helping.For example, the
Church openly supports anti-discrimination ordinances regarding renters and
employers. How about bakeries, then?On the other hand, the Church just
launched a religious freedom website.A person could easily fit this
situation into either arena.Then there is the Church support of openly gay
but chaste members. Is a woman trapped in a man's body relieved of her
priesthood?Like I said, so many questions.

TA1Alexandria, VA

Sept. 12, 2013 5:59 a.m.

If you operate in the public square, you need to follows the laws. If the law
says no discrimination on the basis (among others) of sexual orientation - well
sorry - its not about religious freedom, its about obeying the law.

StraightGrandmotherSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 5:39 a.m.

The fact is the First Amendment protects everyone’s Freedom to Worship,
NOT Freedom to practice their religion. Freedom to practice your religion can be
regulated by the States. This is why Native Americans are not permitted to use
peyote during their worship rites.

The courts – including the
Supreme Court – have specifically ruled as such. For instance,Reynolds v. United States (1878) stated:

“A party’s
religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification for his committing an
overt act, made criminal by the law of the land.”

This has yet
to be overturned by the Supreme Court and as such still stands.

The
courts have also ruled that anti-discrimination laws are not a violation of
either the 1st Amendment or the Constitution.

The Constitution NEVER
granted everyone the right to practice their religion any old way they want to.
You have to differentiate Freedom to Worship & Freedom to Practice which are
in fact two different things.

wwookiePayson, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 4:38 a.m.

Mob rule is awesome. Lets have more of it.

You sell cat food but not
dog food? We're gonna shut you down!

ParkCityAggiePark City, Ut

Sept. 12, 2013 4:14 a.m.

How come this is the only media outlet I see running this story?

And: "Under Oregon law," the state agency said in a statement,
"Oregonians cannot be denied service based on sexual orientation.

Well: Article of Faith #12 - "We believe in being subject to kings,
presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the
law."

Therefor: what's the problem and why is this an issue
here in Utah?

Eyes_Wide_OpenOREM, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 2:07 a.m.

The arrogance of gay right activists is repulsive. What have we become? Are we
expected to be so open minded that our brains fall out? Are individuals and
businesses not allowed to have standards? Does this mean the "no shirts, no
shoes, no service" signs have got to come down now too, lest someone be
offended? This sounds a lot more like slavery than freedom to me.

Marco LuxeLos Angeles, CA

Sept. 12, 2013 1:53 a.m.

Editors: This is a very poorly reported story starting with an inflammatory and
hyperbolic headline including the word "attack". If there were
threats, then you should rely on the police department confirming as reliable
reports of unlawful behavior. Reporting as facts unsubstantiated claims likely
motivated by politics is not journalism and is beneath any reputable
publication, especially an official house organ.

This story might
be newsworthy, but you certainly haven't reported any news here. Sadly, it
reads more like WND propaganda or an Onion parody.

SASSandy, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:59 a.m.

No, Snowman, they don't.

It's explicitly illegal for
businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, for instance. This is federal
law, as long as the business is even tangentially connected to interstate
commerce. Confirmed by a number of Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s.

Kelliebelle66West Jordan, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:38 a.m.

i guarantee you if this had been a bakery owned by someone in the LGBT community
and someone came in and asked them to make a cake that was denigrating towards
their beliefs or if it was a photographer or filmographer who was asked to
create an anti-gay photo retrospective or film you could guarantee the courts
would stand 100% behind their rights to decline business. Religious rights and
beliefs are being trampled on by the very people who call for tolerance for
their own views. There are plenty of businesses out there that will take their
money so they aren't losing out on anything by just walking their wallets
over to another business. My gay brother said he might feel bad to be declined
by a business but he wouldn't expect to be forced to compromise his beliefs
by being forced to do something he disagreed with. In their push for rights
many people have forgotten that other people have rights too and have taken it
too far. Perez Hilton has the right to rip on religious people but he forgets
that religious people have the right to express their beliefs as well. It goes
both ways.

Hey BabyFranklin, IN

Sept. 12, 2013 12:38 a.m.

Trying to come up with a good ending of the National Anthem, something about
"land of the free" isn't fitting so well now!

iplaydatSouth Jordan, UT

Sept. 12, 2013 12:28 a.m.

So as a music composer, if someone making an adult film requested my services to
score the music for their smut film, I would be obligated to accept, regardless
of my religious beliefs? If the film creators were gay or it was a gay adult
film, would that make a difference? If I can't deny anyone my services that
asks if they are part of this "protected" class, then I would be forced
to score the music for the film, right? Just like the bakers that the government
wanted to force into serving a customer they didn't want? This can't
be right! Come on this isn't some 3rd world dictator country is it?

The DeuceLivermore, CA

Sept. 11, 2013 11:52 p.m.

A private business can turn down any business they want. Each person can choose
whether or not to purchase goods or services from such a business. To
specifcally seek out and work to destroy such a business is similar to profiling
and stalking. This is not right and the community should rise up against such
groups and behaviors.

AS a Mormon,
I'd be puzzled and then I'd walk away and take my business elsewhere.
But to take it to the court system is way beyond necessary. There had to be a
better way than to put this family out of business.

@ Really-
it's a true story. I've read about it from several news sources.

GrantHHENDERSON, NV

Sept. 11, 2013 11:36 p.m.

These bakers shut down their shop because there was at least one lawsuit against
them, and they realized that they would lose. There are laws in every state
that say that if you have a business that serves the public, you may not
discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, and in many areas now,
sexual preference. It is a state law of Oregon. For you folks in the 19th
century state of Utah, you can relax right now because the similar law does not
cover sexual preference. So although you cannot turn away Black folks or
Mormons from your businesses, you may still tell gay folks that you will not do
business with them. Remember when no one liked Mormons because they had too
many wives? Some businesses would not serve them back then. Some lessons have
yet to be learned.

SLCWatchSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 11:34 p.m.

Let's look at it from a different angle.

If a black photographer
is asked to take pictures of a Ku Klux Klan convention and he is held to the
same quality and standard of work he would provide anyone else he must provide
those services. He can't shed his color and he can't refuse on the
grounds of personal belief. He can't hide who he is. He can not
discriminate. Providing his services in this situation can be very
threatening.

So it is with a devout religious person, he can't
shed his faith and he can't refuse on grounds of personal belief. He
can't hide who he is by belief. He can't discriminate. Providing his
service to people who hate his beliefs can be very threatening.

But
both can insist on reasonable security measures of their own choosing and that
feeling of personal safety in a hostile environment can be extremely expensive.

poymanLincoln City, OR

Sept. 11, 2013 11:30 p.m.

@schwa... You mean like how Romney was relentlessly attacked by Gays and some
selected folks in minority groups because he was a Mormon? Or do you mean like
how the University of California and Stanford kept and continue to keep BYU out
of the PAC12 because they are a Mormon Based University??? That kind of
discrimination???

Because that kind of discrimination is okay, in
fact it's vogue in today's liberal world... You can discriminate
against a white male under 40 and not let him into high powered universities
(i.e. Harvard or Stanford) because he is not in a protected class even though
his test scores and gpa are better than protected class competitors... Or you
can discriminate in hiring for jobs if the person is white and under 40
despite the fact that they are better qualified...(i.e. How many White Males
have been hired as EVPs in Human Resources for fortune 500 companies the past 10
years???)

In this case, the Bakery supposedly discriminated against a
couple of people simply because of a CHOICE that they have made???

As they say, this world is now officially and totally upside down...

OlderGregUSA, CA

Sept. 11, 2013 11:19 p.m.

PLM has a very good point.To hire an artisan/ craftsman whose heart is not
"into it" is folly ( or it is an exercise in a hidden agenda)

Brother Benjamin FranklinOrem, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 11:19 p.m.

I think that this business got exactly what it deserved. When you discriminate
against someone because you don't agree with them, then you have a serious
problem in society.

But the religious people don't want to
hear that. They just want to everyone to think like they do, and then manipulate
things if they don't get what they want. They use religion as a cover for
their dislike of what others believe and feel. To them, LGBT people are not
normal, everyday people because they feel and see things differently.

I am not asking religious people to like or respect that. But I am asking that
they stop pretending like they are standing up for something good when they
refuse service to people with differing viewpoints, and to just treat them like
they themselves want to be treated and be happy for their fellow citizens.

Accusing LGBT people of activism and being intolerant accomplishes
nothing. On the contrary, if it accomplishes anything, it discredits religion
and its adherents. And as we all know, saying you believe in one thing and
doing something else is hypocritical.

That is why this business got
this result. Plain and simple.

Mom of 8Hyrum, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 11:04 p.m.

Schwa~

I was discriminated against because I was a Mormon, when I
lived in Virginia. My homeschooled children were supposed to take a state test
proctored by another religion's school. When I called to make the
arrangements, they asked my religion, and I told them. They promptly hung up and
refused to take my follow-up calls. They refused to deal with Mormons, even
though it was a state test and they were supposed to administer it.

What did I do?

After I got over my shock and dismay, I remembered
that they have their points of view, and I have mine.

I found other
arrangements. And I never sought retribution or drew attention to or named the
group.

There are always alternatives.

ThrillerSaint George, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 10:49 p.m.

Schwa, as a Mormon, I would not stand outside and protest a business that
refused to serve me due to my religion. I would laugh and take my money
elsewhere where it is actually wanted. If a company doesn't want to do
business with me, it's their loss but it's their right.

Why
would you want someone to make your wedding cake when you know they are
completely and morally opposed to your wedding? Why would you feel the need to
force them against their will to do what you want or have them shut down? I
don't get it.

VladhagenSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 10:48 p.m.

SenoraJefe brings up an interesting point. This is not so much about the fact
that the people were lesbians, it was the event they wanted the cake for. A
business should be able to discriminate which services they provide.

ThrillerSaint George, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 10:44 p.m.

They won't tolerate these intolerant actions of intolerant business owners;
they simply won't tolerate it.

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 10:44 p.m.

The business should be able to deny service to anyone. Anyone, then, should be
able to take their business elsewhere. Private groups and business and
individuals should be able to hold and act on an opinion, within the law,
amongst themselves, in context of whatever consequences that opinion may
generate. There are people who pull into my driveway on Sunday seeking an
antidote to the bad aftertaste of church that I do not wish to provide services
to, and like the photographer or baker in the story I reserve the right to to
refuse them such service. Of course it's because they can't pay me on
sunday and feel less obliged by monday, and that's where I take my stand.
Pay me today, or go away. You can lie to god, but not me. It's my
privilege, and so it is with this baker.

SchwaSouth Jordan, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 10:27 p.m.

I wonder how commenters would feel about businesses denying service to black
people, or Mormons, or women. Discrimination is not allowed for a reason.

SenoraJefeorem, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 10:07 p.m.

I imagine the Christian couple would have been happy to make a birthday cake for
one of the lesbian's, or a congratulations cake, or any sort of other cake.
It shouldn't be against the law to discriminate against a CEREMONY that
goes against a business owner's core beliefs. They weren't
discriminating against the lesbians, they were discriminating against the
ceremony. Just like the photographer who is going through the same thing for
refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. I'm sure she would have done
some nice head shots or graduation pictures, or other pictures for a gay person,
but she shouldn't have to photograph an action or ceremony that goes
against her religious beliefs.

PLMKaysville, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 9:47 p.m.

I was thinking Freedom of Speech also. As an artist I would turn down a
commission that I couldn't create with a clear conscience. No one has the
right to force a business to perform a service for them - this story sounds like
mob rule and they drove the business out. Remember Karma - what goes around
comes around.

Really???Kearns, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 9:45 p.m.

If this is true, it's a very sad story. I have a hard time, however,
believing it. Who are the wedding vendors who got the threatening calls? How
many calls did they actually get? Right now it sounds like stories without much
actual evidence to back up the claims.

RichardBMurray, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 9:40 p.m.

Gay rights activists will not win support by attacking people over their
religion.

schlumpyOrem, UT

Sept. 11, 2013 9:39 p.m.

No, it is not a public accommodation. It is not a park or government service or
public building. It is a private business.